SURVEY SAYS: Is It Time to Retire the Retirement
Age?

July 29, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - It may have snuck
up on you, but if you are working today, you will likely not
collect full Social Security benefits at age 65. This week we
asked readers to weigh in on the advisability of changing the
"normal" retirement age (at least for those currently under
age 55).

That’s right, reforms put in place in 1983 mean that,
for people born in 1938 or later, “full retirement age will
gradually increase until it reaches 67 for people born
after 1959 (
MORE
).
We all know that people are living longer now than they did
when 65 was established as a “normal” retirement age – and
we also know that, based on current savings rates, it may
well be impossible for many to afford to “retire” at age
65, at least in the traditional sense.
This week we asked readers to weigh in on the advisability
of changing the “normal” retirement age (at least for those
currently under age 55).

Before getting into the responses, a couple of readers
shared perspectives on the issue of the choice of age 65 as
“normal” retirement that are worth noting.
One mentioned,
“In 1935, when the program started, the average worker
has a life expectancy of 61.7 (and normal retirement was
65).
The average life expectancy today is 77.
We need to return to the same formula before our kids end
up spending all of their future income on providing us with
retirement benefits.”
And, for those of you unfamiliar with how we came up with
65 in the first place, a reader noted,
“Otto von Bismarck first set the retirement age at 65
when eligible persons were the “frail old” in
19th century. In the 21st century, few of us in theare frail, or even very old, at age 65. I can’t
figure out society should pay me to cease all productive
activities and go play golf just because I had a
birthday.”

The responses this week were more evenly spread out than
normal – no doubt reflecting both the complexity of the
issue, if not its proximity.
Still, the most popular response this week was to “leave it
alone”, cited by more than 28%.
Even here more than one reader echoed the sentiments of one
who said,
“I think it should follow social security.
(But what happens if social security is no longer there)?.
Or there was the reader who said they thought it should
move with Social Security, but cautionedâ€¦
“Not that I am expecting to see anything.”

However, raising it to 70 was a very close second,
garnering the support of 25%, while nearly 18% said we
should simply increase that age in increments that matched
Social Security, while roughly 4% called for it to be moved
to age 75, and 2% said it should be a younger age than it
is presently.

A reader that supported a move to 75 noted,
“Maybe if the Social Security retirement age was moved
to 75 we could get participants to seriously think about
being responsible for their own retirement income.
It would also allow Social Security to do what it was
originally intended to do: provide a few years (not
decades) worth of income when people would most likely not
be able to work.”

Interestingly enough, while “other” is a favorite choice
for many readers, this week it drew a very strong 22%, most
along the lines of
“I’ll go with (F) “other”- irrelevant
because Social Security probably won’t exist when I
retire.”
Another said,
“I’m 34.
Thus, the likelihood of this still being valid at
retirement age, whatever it might be, is as likely as
Social Security still being worth 30% of my post-working
income.”

Another said,
“I’m 29 years old.
I don’t have a clue what the working world will look
like in 35 – 40 years.
I think the retirement age should be whenever a person
chooses to retire.
It’s a personal choice, and hopefully a well thought
out one.
I’m not counting on receiving a penny from SS.
I’m savings lots in my 401k!
:)”

As in so many things, a hard and fast retirement age has
its challenges.
As one reader noted,
“â€¦ in many physically-oriented positions, performing
beyond age 55 may be impossible for the average individual
(the military has known this for years, which is why they
have to thin ranks to those meeting certain physical
criteria and offer an earlier “retirement” age).
This is also true for public safety positions such as
police and fire &rescue workers.”
Another noted,
“People in my generation and younger, also, very
importantly in my economic status, are not working the back
breaking jobs our grandparents and parents did.
We are information workers.
The brain does not wear down like the body does.
In fact, we now know that the more stimulation your brain
gets the stronger it gets.
Work provides brain stimulation as well as social contacts,
another very important point to strong mental health.
It is not just a matter of economics but also of quality of
life.
Work, today, provides more than just a pay check and access
to benefits.”

One reader noted,
“All of my friends are agreeing that they fear that
there will not be any Social Security Benefits when we
reach retirement.
Why should we pay into Social Security to receive nothing
in return??”
It was a comment that could have come from my lips 20 years
agoâ€¦ Another said,
“My basic position as a Boomer who is over 55, with a
spouse who is under 55, is this: You can do anything you
want to Social Security – as long as you don’t mess
with MY benefits!”

A statement that caught my attention was the reader who
said,
“One participant asked me, “What is the incentive
to save for retirement if I’ll never be able to retire
anyway?”

But this week’s
Editor’s Choice
goes to the reader who observed,
“Doesn’t really matter what they change the age to,
because until they make our healthcare system affordable,
we’re all going to keep working until the day we
die.”

Thanks to everyone who participated in our
survey!

(b) Even though modifying to match Social Security makes
sense, it's been our experience that very few folks
retire at 65.
Some go early; some stay later. Because we are dealing with
individuals, the only rules that apply are "there are
no rules".
Flexibility is the name of the game.

Well, I'm 26, so I think 26 would be the ideal
retirement age!
😉
Seriously, I think that the retirement age ought to be left
alone.
Yes, people are living longer, but the greater number of
years of retirement is an important incentive for people to
work and save now.
I think more people my age believe in UFO's than
believe that they will be able to retire at 65, and that
can lead to apathy.
One participant asked me, "What is the incentive to
save for retirement if I'll never be able to retire
anyway?"

(a) Left alone.
But what about Medicare eligibility indexing?
Most companies I know haven't modified early retirement
ages to coincide with the new Social Security age rules
because everyone is still eligible for Medicare at 65.
How come nobody has looked at this issue?

Realistically, I have a feeling it will be something
like D...but "C" would be nice.
I don't know that I'll want to keep working until I
am 75.
70 I can do... and I might just do... but 75 is a bit much.
Geez... that's still 37 years away.
Of course, I could always take my own retirement and start
living off of my savings until I meet official retirement
age so I can tap into my 401(k).
This assumes that there might be something left in social
security by then.
So we'll go with C as my official answer... but I think
D is what is going to happen eventually.

Under age 55 today 70

Under age 40 today 75

Under age 25 today 80

The push from the baby boomers will force research into
longevity farther along.
Lessons learned as the boomers retire will in reality have
a greater impact on younger generations.
This will probably lead to a longer period before
meaningful employment (education through age 25 to 30) will
be the norm.
With a current life expectancy of 25+ years post retirement
for about 2/3 of the boomers modest medical gains and
better understanding of the impact of just minute changes
in diet, exercise and medical treatment can push a retiree
being in retirement for as much as 60 years post 65.

I believe the NRA for SS should continue to increase
until it hits 75. That increase would make the system look
much more like it did when it was created in the
'30's. The increase is 2 months for each year
beginning in 1959. This change would solve the funding
problem for the foreseeable future.

NRA

DOB
Birthday

1965
68

1971
69

1977
70

1983
71

1989
72

1995
73

2001
74

2007
75

I know it's after 2pm, but I am a West-Coaster just
getting this newsletter (which, by the way, I try to read
daily).

If the Social Security Administration had their act
together, they would have long ago developed and
recommended an indexing methodology using actuarial tables
to slowly but steadily increase the retirement age. Such a
system would be fact-based, and therefore not subject to
the inevitable squabble that occurs over such changes when
they are part of a political process. Congress should vote
on the change and approve the methodology one time - - and
perhaps build in a periodic review cycle of every five
years. Our country needs to discontinue the politicization
of those financial decisions that can be made on facts and
actuarial data, rather continuing to rely upon a political
process that becomes ever-more emotional laden. Not many
things fall into such a category, but SS benefits and their
timing can be analyzed with reams of data, leading to
changes that can benefit the financial situation of the
entire SS program - -
and without coming back to the contributors for increases
once again.

F) Other!
Leave the age alone and modify the way the money taken out
of peoples pay is managed.
If the age is gradually increased, you'll start to feel
like a horse with a carrot hanging in front of you.
Social Security benefits as the carrot.
You can see retirement, but you'll never get there.
You'll either die first or the "carrot" will
be all dried up!

I think it should follow social security.
(But what happens if social security is no longer
there?)

The fact is that not all people follow the retirement
age rule.
If you are well off (or well prepared), you retire early.
As you said, most of us can't afford to retire at 65
and continue to work because we have to.

If the government decides to spend social security, they
better find a way to pay for long term care insurance for a
large population.

As a 31 year male I don't think I should be
penalized for being born in the wrong year due to poor
planning for the baby boomer generation by the previous
House, Senate and Presidential administrations, which by
their own accord have caused the problem, and now want my
generation to not only pay for it, but to suffer for it.
So, I answer the question this way why should I be required
to retire later than someone in retirement now, or who is
retiring in ten years (of which both I am helping to
subsidize now)? Is this fair? Just something to
consider!!!

Keep the same ages for "blue collar" workers
and increase the ages for white "collar workers"
immediately by 2 years for eligibility of full benefits and
everybody takes an across the board 5% benefit cut.
(I wonder what this would do the system actuarially
speaking, as far as increasing its survivability)

(e) Move to 55.
Thank goodness for a good pension system which allows for
retirement for most State of employees at 55.
I saw a data study which showed an employee (private or
public white color, male or female) who retires at 55 will
increase their lifespan approximately 5 years over a person
who works until they are 65.

If work was so healthy for everyone, then we should all
work until we drop dead on the job.

F) Other!
Leave the age alone and modify the way the money taken out
peoples pay is managed.
If they gradually increase the age, you'll start to
feel like a horse with a carrot hanging in front of your
face with Social Security benefits as the carrot.
You can see retirement, but you'll never get there and
by the time you manage to catch up with it, the
"carrot" will be all dried up!

Social Security should adopt decrement tables and reduce
the average mortality age by 15 years to arrive at
"Normal Retirement Age", by setting to a formula
- the "system" in effect, sets an
"average" fifteen year payout and under the law
of large numbers, the administration can predict,
relatively accurately, the cost of providing such a
benefit.
In addition, this way the "system" flows overtime
with the expected increasing lifespan of the population,
albeit on a lagged basis.

I'll go with (F) "other"- irrelevant
because Social Security probably won't exist when I
retire.

I'm 34.
Thus, the likelihood of this still being valid at
retirement age, whatever it might be, is as likely as
Social Security still being worth 30% of my post-working
income.

I think that a participant should be allowed to start
taking your retirement benefit from the trust at 67 (Normal
Retirement), however without any COLAs.
If you hold off, up to say 5-6 years, you should get the
actuarial equivalent, again without being eligible for
subsequent increases.

D: Maybe if the Social Security retirement age was moved
to 75 we could get participants to seriously think about
being responsible for their own retirement income.
It would also allow Social Security to do what it was
originally intended to do: provide a few years (not
decades) worth of income when people would most likely not
be able to work.

a - left alone.
People are living longer because medicine has advanced to
the point where we are able to help people stay alive.
People are not living longer because they are
"healthier".
People still "slow" down at the same point today
as they would have 20 years ago - those that take care of
themselves slow down later in life, but that was same in
the 60's and 70's as well.

It should be a) left alone!
Many people have medical problems that preclude their
working beyond age 67 (medical problems can be genetic and
not just attributable to lifestyle), but they are often not
eligible for Social Security disability benefits because
the eligibility criteria are so stringent.
(I am somewhat familiar with this because my husband is a
Social Security disability adjudicator.)
Raising the "normal retirement age" for Social
Security even higher would really penalize those folks, and
they need the security of that lifetime benefit without
penalty as early as possible.

Think eligibility should be based upon age and years of
service, to include additional considerations based upon
the position being performed.

If an individual is 55 and worked for the same firm for
30 years, that is usually a burnout point and they should
be allowed to exit, with appropriate benefits, even if
choosing to work for another firm.
Perhaps some actuarial adjustment is in order given
increasing longevity, but chaining late-career workers to
jobs due to inability to retire based upon age is not good
for anyone.

And in many physically-oriented positions, performing
beyond age 55 may be impossible for the average individual
(the military has known this for years, which is why they
have to thin ranks to those meeting certain physical
criteria and offer an earlier "retirement" age).
This is also true for public safety positions such as
police and fire &rescue workers.

I wonder......... if the Government invested $1,000.00
for every baby born, by the time they reached age 65, there
would be quite a nest-egg.

What?
Are you suggesting that there will be funding left for
people who are currently under 55?
Cynical, yes, but I have been told not to count on Social
Security for retirement savings to be anything but. .

f. other

I'm 29 years old.
I don't have a clue what the working world will look
like in 35 - 40 years.
I think the retirement age should be whenever a person
chooses to retire.
It's a personal choice, and hopefully a well thought
out one.
I'm not counting on receiving a penny from SS.
I'm savings lots in my 401k!
🙂

F) Other

I don't think they should move the retirement age
around but change who actually receives monies.
It should be based on need.
Not everyone receiving social security needs to receive it
and I'm sure there will be more in the future.

I'm sure however, all those receiving it will say
they need it.
We need to have some sort of calculation to determine what
percentage payout someone should receive ranging from 0 to
100%

(f).
This is a tough question to answer because it all depends
on what you mean by "normal" retirement age, that
is, what you think it implies.
I think would favor of abandoning the term
"normal" retirement age entirely, except that
without radical (and politically impossible) changes in
Social Security and the private pension system we would
still need a concept to function for legal purposes were
"normal retirement age" functions today.
For example, I write 401(k) plans without using the terms
"retirement" or "retire" at all when
the employer does not want to try to fool employees into
thinking that the 401(k) plan is a retirement plan.
Still, I've got to provide for 100 percent vesting no
later than the time the law defines as "normal
retirement age."
I handle that simply by providing that participants will
become 100 percent vested on their 65th birthday, if not
sooner under the plan's vesting schedule.

F)
Doesn't really matter what they change the age to,
because until they make our healthcare system affordable,
we're all going to keep working until the day we
die.

Well, I think my answer is "b" - modified
along with Social Security, but I'm more concerned
about the payment of benefits in the future than I am about
the full retirement age.
We need to do something to shore up the Social Security
system while at the same time, encouraging the private
sector to maintain and even establish new defined-benefit
plans - because the defined contribution system is not
going to provide retirement security to the great masses of
middle and low income workers who can't afford to save
and who, even if they could, do not have a clue about how
to choose wise investments.

The "normal" retirement age should be "f)
other." Just like our work lives

-- And everything else, it seems -- retirement is
evolving into a self-care endeavor. I'm thirty-seven,
and my success has come in moving from job to job,
self-employment, and managing my own skill set AND
retirement funds. That said, I'll "retire"
when I'm ready, if at all, and it probably won't
look at all like what my parents are doing today.
Retirement has been like a reward, the carrot dangling from
the end of a thirty-year stick. I think my generation is
more inclined to find its rewards along the way.

(d) or (f) move it to 80

These seem to be the only affordable options now that
Congress has failed to take any serious reform action in
the last 20 years.
In 1935, when the program started, the average worker has a
life expectancy of 61.7 (and normal retirement was 65).
The average life expectancy today is 77.
We need to return to the same formula before our kids end
up spending all of their future income on providing us with
retirement benefits.

(b)
It actually hasn't snuck up on me, I have not forgotten
the change that got made and that 65 is not my SS normal
retirement day.
And while it has been amusing to receive notices from HR
etc that ignore that fact I'd really rather it be
acknowledged.

(f)
Actually, I think things should operate like the military
and if you put in your 30 you get to retire with full pay.
That would leave me with just 2 more years to go and a lot
of life left to enjoy it.

There are only five choices to actuarially "save" the SS
System as we know it.

4th: offer a controlled investment program for
some of the employee/employer contribution

5th: some combination of the other four
choices

I'm very close to being 65 years old and have seen in my
recent SS statement the amount I've contributed vs. the
projected payout. My full payout is at 65 years, 4-months.
Investing identical dollars at identical times in T-bills
would have been far more beneficial for me on the payout
side than being in the System.
But, of course, I had no choice in the matter.

The most seamless change to help the cause would be to
continue extending the age at which full benefits kick in.
I would extend that age from 67 to 72 and do so in 4-month
increments/year.
It would therefore take 15-years (beyond the year when the
current 67-year full payout requirement starts to apply)
before someone has to wait until age 72 to retire.
My older daughter, age 31 Â½, is going to work forever
anyway - so she shouldn't care much.
Medical advances should give her 120 hopefully fulfilling
years.

I'm not sure of the exact actuarial impact; but my guess
is that this change alone should extend the program's full
payout life for a generation.
What we need right now is an actuarial study to project the
impact of each and every nuance of changed criteria.
Maybe the System is easier to save than we think.

By the way, I'm going to try to stay employed for at
least 10 more years.

Otto von Bismarck first set the retirement age at 65
when eligible persons were the "frail old" in
19th century . In the 21st century, few of us in the are
frail, or even very old, at age 65. I can't figure out
society should pay me to cease all productive activities
and go play golf just because I had a birthday. Perhaps if
I had to do volunteer work for 1,000 hours a year to get my
Social Security . . .

--

Leave the retirement age alone, at least for now. While
people are living longer, is the quality of life better the
longer one lives? If not, and "normal" retirement
age is raised to some other arbitrary point, there is no
guarantee that people will be productive workers up to that
new NRA. So, we retire at 70 or 75, don't "enjoy"
retirement life, live longer spending more years in the
real twilight of life because the "pre-twilight"
years were spent working up to a new NRA. Let everyone make
their own decisions- retire at 65, work longer, work part
time- but have choices!

b) Not that I am expecting to see anything.

The age of 65 as the normal retirement age was
established at a time when life expectancies were much
shorter than they are today.

I think that "normal retirement age" should be
a floating age, moved periodically (say, every 5 years or
so) to keep up with the ever-increasing longevity of our
population.
Otherwise, we will have a disproportionate number of
not-so-old folks wasting away in premature retirement,
while jobs and work will sit unattended.....

For starters, we should move the normal retirement age
to 70-ish...

It should be moved higher, along with other changes
necessary to properly fund Social Security.
With a longer life expectancy now why would anyone think
they would have the necessary funds at age 65 to "do
nothing" for the rest of their lives.
100 years ago doing nothing at some late point in your life
was never an option and should not be now, it does nothing
positive for the person or society.

To be very honest, does it really matter since Social
Security probably won't even exist when those of us
under age 55 get to "retirement".

If nothing is done to shore up Social Security,
isn't the age going to have to go up to guarantee any
benefits at all?

(b) Modified along with Social Security.
The uniformity would simplify things greatly.

F Other.
How about a carrot on a moving stick?
If you can catch it, full retirement benefits.
If not, well, it was nice to know and, by the way, thanks
for the 20+ years of service

My response is personal and "e", other. My
basic position as a Boomer who is over 55, with a spouse
who is under 55, is this: You can do anything you want to
Social Security - as long as you don't mess with MY
benefits!

b-modified with social security.
I am 62, earn a good salary, but since my company only has
a 401K plan since 1994 and no pension plan, I cannot
realistically retire until I am 70.
If you figure the benefits, assuming I live to 84, which is
reasonable, I will make out much better waiting until
70-now I have to hope the body, mind and patience are
willing to wait!

No more changes - leave the NRA at 65 - this may
actually help some people because they will be able to
collect their pension check and still work another full
time job adding extra income in their accounts.
I think what should change for our pension plan is the
percentage for accruing benefits - it's 1.3% per year.
Is that good, bad or average?

(f) Other - like Medicare (HI), the tax for SS (OASDI)
should be on all earnings and not just the earnings up to
the Wage Base.

The answer to this question, is that it should be left
alone.
Although we may be living longer the current workplace does
not allow you to slow down as you near retirement age.
So you have to work full force till age 65-67 and then you
may find another job to supplement your retirement for a
couple of years till you are no longer able to work.
But due to the decline as we age, it is too much stress for
most people to expect them to proceed at full steam at an
older and older age.

Realizing that our population is aging and that we will
have more people reaching the mark than the system can
support now, I still want to say a) leave it at 65.
Purely selfish reasons of course....I am 32 and have
10years of tenure with my company.
I just don't like the mental thought of adding 2 (or 3
or 5) more years to my long term goal of becoming a
full-time knitter....

Being just under 55 myself, I think that 66 should be
the normal retirement age for those who were born in 1950.
For the rest of you, I would support means testing for
benefits.
After all there has traditionally been a cap to the salary
base on contributions, why shouldn't there be an income
test for benefits?

I think that it should remain the same.
I also think that the Social Security Administration should
do something about the approaching short coming of benefits
to people in the current 35-50 age range.
All of my friends are agreeing that they fear that there
will not be any Social Security Benefits when we reach
retirement.
Why should we pay into Social Security to receive nothing
in return??

It hardly matters. As long as Congress continues to
"borrow" from the trust fund, there is not likely to be any
money there when I am 67, much less 70.

(d) Moved to 75.
Or at the very least (c) Moved to 70.
The originator of 65 as a retirement age was and it was
selected because at the time, the life expectancy was in
the low 60s. When Social Security was created, life
expectancy was probably around 68 years.
Now life expectancy is in the 80s for both males and
females and it's no wonder that the system is being
strained.
Social Security was intended as an Old Age Benefit and
I'd argue that Old Age now starts in the 70s.

Asking a loaded question will get you a loaded
answer...

I think that the Social Security System is a good idea
as so many persons do not otherwise save for retirement.
Having said that...

The Social Security System needs to become solvent for
the long term in order to provide the benefits that it
promises.
Having said that...

There must be a Values discussion among the American
people (via congress and its professionals) that decides
the appropriate benefit levels (including the age for
receipt of such benefits), to whom they should be paid and
then the appropriate funding levels and mechanisms.
Then...

Rhetoric aside, a disciplined approach to saving for and
providing that benefit must be implemented.
Having said that...

I want mine at 67...just kidding...I'm not actually
eligible for Social Security...I'm a career
governmental employee.

Social Security should be abandoned as is currently
exists and we should all receive current benefit values we
have accrued and be allowed to invest in tax deferred
government securities at no cost where we stand a much
better chance of increasing our nest eggs for our
"golden years".
As it stands currently, I probably won't even see a
dime of Social Security that I have been paying into since
I was 18.

We have a pension plan that offers Level Options with SS
benefits at age 62 and age 65, however we are seeing more
and more employees now who no longer qualify for SS
benefits at age 65, they are part of the extended SS ages.
This is very confusing for those that take the SS Leveling
Options and something we will have to address with our
pension plan very soon.
I would like to see B, modified along with SS, so that
employees retire at the "normal SS retirement
age" making this process less confusing for all.

Definitely C.

We're going to be forced to cut back on Social
Security benefits anyway... might as well start with a
change that makes sense even without the financial troubles
we'll be experiencing in the program.

To provide some flexibility, maybe heavily reduced
benefits be allowed at or after 65 but certainly no
commencement before 65.

I believe that the retirement age should be move,
gradually (that means after I retire) to age 70.
With the advances in health care, the failure to start
saving for retirement until later in life (too busy
ensuring college for the kids) and the lack of political
will to fix Social Security (Oh no, we can't do that.
I need to run again soon), is there another realistic
alternative?

I believe it might be a good idea to segment the
population and move "normal" retirement as follows:

Current Age Group
Retirement

Under 25
75

26 - 40
72

41-54
68

55+
AS IS

Projected lifespan is increasing. The reality is if
childbirth or early childhood diseases don't get you 100+
appears to be what's in store. With gene therapies and
organ cloning 120-150 does not seem out of
reasonableness

I think the Normal Retirement Age should be left as is
scheduled. For most boomers that age will be somewhere
between 66 and 67. That has already lowered benefits for
those who wish to retire at 62 or 65. Social Security has
been supported across the board in the over the years
because everyone is eligible for the same benefits up to
the wage base. And, for individuals who still work
physically demanding jobs, many can't delay retirement
past 66 (or even 62!).
It's better to leave the ages as is and tweak the system
differently to ensure future funding.
People can always delay Social Security on their own to get
a higher benefit (which compound with cost-of-living
increases). They can still retire early, just use their DC
assets to fund the "bridge period" to the delayed
SS age.

(a) Left alone.
But what about Medicare eligibility indexing?
Most companies I know haven't modified early retirement
ages to coincide with the new Social Security age rules
because everyone is still eligible for Medicare at 65.
How come nobody has looked at this issue?

The normal retirement age for those under 55 today, I am
40, should move in step with the Social Security normal
retirement age.
People in my generation and younger, also, very importantly
in my economic status, are not working the back breaking
jobs our grandparents and parents did.
We are information workers.
The brain does not wear down like the body does.
In fact, we now know that the more stimulation your brain
gets the stronger it gets.
Work provides brain stimulation as well as social contacts,
another very important point to strong mental health.
It is not just a matter of economics but also of quality of
life.
Work, today, provides more than just a pay check and access
to benefits.